You make a good point. If Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE would provide access out of the Persian Gulf.
Posted on 02/22/2006 3:54:45 AM PST by LouAvul
WASHINGTON - Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates said President Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.
The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.
"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.
Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."
The White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.
The sale — set to be completed in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.
Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.
To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.
A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."
Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.
Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."
Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.
"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."
Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.
Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."
Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."
The 45-day review is mandated by AMMENDMENT in this situation given the national security implications. The President doesn't decide whether the extension takes place, it's mandatory.
You haven't heard about David Sanborn, right?
1) DWP is in negotiations with or has already bought P&O, *THE* centuries old British company that has contracts to operate ports in Europe, Germany, eastern bloc countries, Australia, Argentina (now we know why Hugo has been grabbing headlines) and Texas and California.
2) In addition to the 6 US ports, there's also two ports in Texas (Galveston and Beaumont) which the Army uses to ship 40% of their supplies to Iraq.
3) Two weeks ago, Bush's nominee to the Maritime Adm, head honcho of DWP David Sanborn, was confirmed. His duties will be to oversee the Maritime Security Program, Ready Reserve Force, and Title XI which is the shipbuilding loan and mortgage program.
Dubai and UAE have a lot to do with Iran. Because this is apparently such a political hot potato and UAE wants it so much, there will be lots of quid pro this quo. Control of the Strait of Hormuz is the immediate prize and there are 3 islands in Iranian hands right there just offshore from UAE. Watch those islands. Bush would not be pushing this in the face of certain conservative oposition if there were not some other consideration. I think that consideration is strategicand relates to preparation for an assault on Iran. This war is a WORLD war and everything is in play.
My bet is that the national security trigger isn't activated by the purchase of terminal operations. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to see the info. Those articles you pointed out don't go into that.
The debate will probably be whether a lease on terminal operations should activate the trigger in the future.
Wake up people! I don't need a loyalty test, I'd just like some plain common sense. It's main street values I'm after, not those of a Houston Country Club.
Is there any real difference between turning the ports over to a company from Dubai and turning the western wilderness lands over to the multi-national timber and gas companies? Really, would we want the Russians running the US ports instead?? What if the company from Dubai were clear-cutting and strip mining our wild lands that have always been American treasures? This is what the 'left' complains about when they complain about globalization.
If I twist my tin foil hat ever so slightly I see the Chinese allowing the Waltons to keep their name on Walmart because they are smart enough to know that having a Chinese name on the store would be bad for business.
Face it, twisting arms in other countries so that they open their natural resources to our corporations means we have to open ourselves to the same beast.
Watch out, because the next time you look up a Japanese/Korean fishing fleet will be busy cleaning out our offshore fishing grounds, and the Indians will be dismantling our computer industry (and the Arabs will be running our ports). ---Oops, too late or all three counts.
And Bush won't even understand why you are concerned. Face it, he's not a conservative and this is not about profiling Arabs.
Yes a few boats will rise on a sea of global prosperity (no pun intended) as we sell the ports and the forests and main streets to foreign corporations or multi-nationals. It's just that the new owners will not have our national interests at the top of their agenda. I don't mind a Mexican company opening a chain of fried chicken restaurants or a French company making candy to sell in the grocery store. That is a different issue. I'm talking about divesting our natural resources and national jewels to people whose loyalty is not to the United States.
Why does UAE "want it so much." Aren't they already stinking rich with oil.
Really....your school must have had low standards.
It's idiotic to suggest that someone should not be a Republican because you disagree with their stance on this issue.
President Bush should leave the Republican party and/or be impeached? Give me a break.
That would be superior to this
LOL! Your question and challenge sounded like Rush the last 2 days on his program. I think his trying to find some way to rationalize Bush's move here proves (to me anyway) that he gets his daily marching orders from the White House.
I think the indignation and opposition from the right is beneficial to the strategic aims of this deal. If the deal is right, is, indeed, a move to secure Dubai and the Strait of Hormuz, then no opposition will derail it because the necessary congressmen have been briefed and opposition is a smokescreen in the eyes of Iran which may not think that their implicit control of the Strait of Hormuz is being eroded. The opposition also gives Bush lots of clout in requirements from UAE for much quid pro all this quo.An actual invasion of or neutralization of Iran requires the US control the Strait. Getting that control by deals is much cheaper and less confrontational thanlanding the marines.
I think a big part of the problem is the way the President has handled this. It was done in secret and now that the word is out he is showing unbelievable arrogance. The dems have been nailing the administration as being the most secret in history and this just plays right into their hands. Talk about a tin ear...Bush sure has it.
What makes you think that?
You are not meeting me halfway. This is the way I saw it from about day 3 after the nomination. I assumed she would be held out there until the clamor from the right "forced" her withdrawal. That clamor preempted the left beautifully and oposition to Alioto was reduced to pro forma posuring.
and what is to stop that from happening regardless of who owns the business? the unions still run the docks, the military still runs security. the only thing that changes is where the profits ( if any ) go. This is nothing more than media hype. ( the people in the most panic stricken state, are not the ones you want to trust with running this country, and that includes Frist )because they have not read, nor did they have all the details, before they reacted loudly and hysterically. none of them are presidential material. NONE of them.
You make a good point. If Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE would provide access out of the Persian Gulf.
It's designed by Fester Bestertester.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.